Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)
our spending issues and would not incorporate $1 trillion or more of increased taxes which will just simply go to more spending. how could we possibly support a budget with a $16.7 trillion debt that plunges us further into debt, with a staggering increase in debt, and also spending that doesn't reduce spending but simply reduces the rate of growth of spending, which is a step but nothing nearly appropriate to what we are facing. so this budget grows government. let's not make any excuses. it grows government by increasing spending. and it grows government by a massive increase in taxes. just after we've had one a few months ago. and not counting the massive increase in taxes that's going to occur beginning in 2014 with the implementation of obamacare. when we add that up, when we look at the cost of that, we face dire circumstances. and you would think that the budget being offered to us would not increase debt by 42%, but would address the real problem. now, i know there's been a dispute about how much this budget revenue, taxes are increased. some say $1.5 trillion. those that hav
congress, including the deal on the bush tax cuts that were made at year end. $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next ten years. and all also agree that $is.8is- that $1.8 trillion was gutting expenses and a little more than $600 billion of this was revenues achieved through the year-end bush tax cut deal. so everwhelmingly what has been done thus far has been in spending cuts rather than new revenues. it is very important for us to know that. it is very important for folks to realize that democrats are willing to make are hard calls about spending. we've done it already. but the question before this body and the question before the house now is going forward, what do we do to achieve additional deficit reduction that's consistent with having a growing economy? and the approaches of the senate and the house on this could not be more different. the house approach basically says that all additional deficit reduction should be achieved by cutting spending. by looking at one side of the balance sheet. i do not know of a business, i do not know of a family, i do not know of other u
their fair share too as we work towards deficit reduction. so our senate budget locks in tax cuts for the middle class while closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code. and our budget uses that new revenue from the wealthiest americans and big corporations for deficit reduction and for investments that support our economy and strengthen our middle class. now the house republican budget, which we'll vote on tonight, does the opposite. according to the tax policy center, the tax plan in the house republican budget would cost nearly $5.7 trillion in lost federal revenue. and the majority of that lost revenue will benefit the wealthiest americans. and just like past house republican budgets, it's once again pretty unclear how this budget would pay for all those tax cuts that are skewed toward the wealthiest. but the reality, mr. president, is that to achieve the goals that are laid out in their budget, house republicans will either have to add to the deficit, meaning their budget might not actually balance as they claim, or they're going to have to raise taxes on
loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations. in addition to replacing sequestration with deficit reduction that is far more responsible, our budget follows the advice of experts and economists across the political spectrum who say it makes sense to invest in job creation in the short term while putting ourselves on a strong path to responsible and sustainable deficit and deficit reduction over the immediate -- immediate and long term. we believe that in order to truly tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in the real world and not just make them disappear on paper, we need a strong foundation for growth built from the middle out. so this budget invests in a $100 billion economic recovery protection plan to put workers back on the job, repairing our nations highest priority, deteriorating infrastructure and fixing our crumbling schools and installing critical educational technology like broadband that our students need to succeed. this plan creates an infrastructure bank to leverage public funds with private inv
we spoke to grover norquist of americans for tax reform on this morning's washington journal. here's a portion of the conversation. >> host: welcome back to the "washington journal" and over -- grover norquist joins us. i want to get your thoughts on the news of the growth and opportunity project report out from the republican national committee, the chairman of the republican national committee is having a press conference that started a few minutes ago at the national press club, talking about changes that the party needs to make in terms of outreach, changes to how to dominate a presidential nominee. just on what you've heard so far? >> guest: first of all is important to do a postmortem on an unsuccessful campaign. republicans at every recent to believe that -- would capture the senate and when the white house as well and it didn't happen. now at the same time republicans had 30 governors and democrats have 20 and at the state level more republican state legislators than democrats. there are 25 states where republicans have united control in both houses and only 12 states, less
. he's planning this year to abolish the corporate and individual income tax, moving in a very different direction than the national democrats want to and winning elections with that approach. so there's a lot to be learned both by the failure of the romney campaign and the senate races and the successes the republicans have had at the state level. >> host: and we're taking your calls in this segment with grover norquist with americans for tax reform. the phone lines are open. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. grover norquist known as an expert on some of these budget issues. you bring up the senate budget that we saw from budget chairwoman patty murray last week with. talk about that and how you think it compares to paul ryan's budget. >> guest: there are two major differences. they certainly go in different directions. the paul ryan budget balances in ten years and does not raise taxes. patty murray's budget never balances and raises taxes $1.5 trillion over the next decade. so what the democrats and patty murray are saying in add
on a new tax release coming in the years for the creative industries like high end television and animation with new support for our world class visual effect. to help small firms increase. spend through the small business research initiative. we will fund the proposal po make growth available to small firms seeking advice on how to expand. and putting new control on what regulators can charge by giving a new requirement to have a -- growth perspective of employers. mr. deputy speaker, a vital sector for our economy and the cost of doing business is energy. creating a low carbon economy is done by create jobs rather than -- was a major step forward for new nuclear. today with help of we are also announcing our intelligence to take two projects to the next stage of development will support the manufacture of mission vessels in britain with new takes incentive and the honorable members has urged do you passionately and in a nonpartisan way about the damage of doing the famous ceramic industry and persuaded me we will exempt from next year the industrial processes for the industry and others f
that would be devastating for our families and the economy, dismantling medicare and ending up cutting taxes for the rich while raising them on the middle class. and not only that, but it did rely on gimmicks and tricks to hit that arbitrary date. there is nothing balanced about that kind of approach, and i'm very glad that every member of the senate had an opportunity to be clear about where we stand on that. mr. president, the senate also voted yesterday to specifically reject the idea that medicare should be dismantled or voucherrized. i'm glad we had strong bipartisan support on that amendment. we also voted clearly for the idea that while both sides favor closing tax loopholes and ending wasteful reductions that favored the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations, the senate thinks some of that revenue should be used to tackle the deficit and invest in the middle class, not be used just to simply cut tax rates for the rich the way that the house budget did. so, mr. president, we have a few more hours of debate this morning between now and 11:00, followed by some votes, and then we
, our chair says that this is a pro-growth, pro-middle-class budget. i say it's pro-tax, pro-spend, pro-debt budget. it's a budget of deep disappointment. it's a budget that comes nowhere near doing the things necessary to put america on a sound path. it's a budget that does indeed reflect the stark differences between our parties. it's rather remarkable to me the extent to which our majority party in the united states senate has no interest in producing a budget that actually balances and actually puts america on the right path. they say they care about growth, and i know they do. i know they would like to see the economy grow more and more jobs be created because we have had the slowest recovery during this recession since any time after the world war ii, at least. very, very slow. but we have done something to a degree we have never done before, and that is borrow and spend to stimulate the economy. and someone has compared borrowing and spending to stimulate the economy to the idea of someone taking a bucket, scooping up water in one end of the swimming pool and pouring it into the
as quickly as possible. now, we had the discussion earlier about taxes and we thought that we had worked the tax problem for and everybody preserved people's taxes for 99% of the people and we thought that there were going to be some spending cuts coming. somebody sent me this little chart that i have to share. this says "republican" on it. "okay, i'll raise taxes if you promise to cut spending." well, lucy, it's a "deal." but we've been watching this cartoon for years and years and we know what happens. when we go to pick up the spending cuts, the football suddenly gets lifted out of the way and we wind up on our back. the american public winds up on its back. that's not the kind of spending cuts we're looking for. we're looking for some real spending cuts. not just a decrease in the growth but some real spending cuts. and there's -- there's a way to do those. wyoming has been faced with probably an 8% in reduction in its income. how did it handle it? the governor, seeing that coming, got ahold of every department and program and said, i need a plan from you for how you would cut 2%, ho
every with me that today we need a blue-collar conservative project which has taxes are people who work hard, do the right thing and want to get on? stop spending billions of pounds we don't have on overseas aid where we saw -- helping with their cost of living -- [inaudible] >> first of all, can i thank the honorable frien thing for givine the opportunity to remind people that even before this budget in two weeks time there will be a tax cut for 24 million people in our country? [shouting] as we raise the amount of money you can earn before you pay tax come we will take an over too many people out the tax altogether. we have frozen the council tax. we have canceled fuel duty increase after fuel duty increase, and we are legislating -- and i can also tell him where not going to carry on with a proposal made by the previous energy secretary which was about 179 pounds on everybody's bill. we decided to scrap that. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> trento want to ask the primers about the situation in cyprus. can the prime minister update the house what is being done to protect the british nat
to end medicare as we know it. nobody, as in the ryan budget, wants to reduce taxes dramatically on the wealthiest americans -- 39% to 25% -- and then take away deductions from middle-class people, good deductions that make sense like the mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction, the retitle deduction, the health care reduction. no, no wants to do that. and no one wants to eat our seed corn. investment in education, investment in infrastructure, investment in sign b scientific research in order to keep narrow loopholes open, reductions if you move the business overseas. no, they don't want to debate that. but now we have a budget. because of the leadership of the chair of the budget committee and the members of her committee -- and, by the way, this is no -- this is not a small group of democrats. it runs from our most liberal members to our most conservative members, all united around the budget that is fiscally responsible. it meets the gramm-rudman -- i mean, i'm on old guy -- the simpson-bowles constraints, budget target. it invests in jobs in the economy, and closes loop
't the president, but the governor of california, and tax reform happened in that state. and it wasn't until later, ironically back in california, when ronald reagan as the president signed into raw the economic recovery -- into law the economic recovery act. real reform happened in the states. as was mentioned yesterday, there are now in america some 30 states that have republican governors and nearly as many that have republican legislatures. [applause] and so that's the good news. the good news is we have success, and it's happening in our states, and we can learn from that to tell our friends and our colleagues in washington how to move forward. because, you see, in the states to be successful we have to be optimistic. we have to be relevant. and most importantly, we have to be courageous. let me talk to you a little bit about each of those three things. you see, when it talks about being inspirational and optimistics, one of the things that's interesting is when i first ran for governor -- i have to say first because who would have thought i'd have to get elected twice in the same term -- [la
for considering is the tax and spending blueprint for fiscal year 2014. live coverage at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. south carolina is holding a primary today in the 1st congressional house district. here's a look at that race. >> host: well, here is the front page of the state newspaper this morning, a story by gina smith for the island packet. turnout will decide today's election for the 1st congressional seat in south carolina. gina smith is joining us on the phone this morning. of gina smith, tell me about this race. who's running and why? >> guest: well, good morning from south carolina. this is like christmas morning for me, i'm so excited. [laughter] this is really an exciting race. we have 18 republicans, two democrats, an incredibly crowded field. but some of the names in this race just make it just delicious to watch. we have mark stanford, the former -- sanford, the former governor who most of the nation remembers as the guy who slipped out of the country in 2009 so he could go visit his mistress, and he -- everyone thought he was hiking the appalachian trail, but he was up to some
't know what to do with fat to get paid taxes, fall also walls but they are not able to take part in the things of the alexandria citizen was about to take part in. this is part of a program that the young local attorney had been working on for some time. >> he was a native of alexandria? wanting to be a lawyer for two reasons, one, there was a lawyer you're in town, thomas watson, who rented space from his father, and he became fascinated with what the lawyer did. the letter he took a trip on with his brother to d.c. and they were coming back and ask to move from the seats once the streetcar brought in alexandria by a patient that was there and they refused to that i believe there was tucker's brother all those that refuse to move from his seat and when they got off the street cars the woman filed that and so i sat down a policeman to have the young, old and a rusted and luckily the charge was confirmed out because the boys were really scared the charges would not be thrown out, but the judge felt like they hadn't created in the disturbance and they were not trying to do anything
critical topics today. so what are the fundamental issues? well, with taxes we know ronald reagan spent much of his life trying to cut them for the average american. he was convinced that it was the man or woman on the street who knew how to spend their dollar more wisely than a distant federal government, and he did all in his power to prove it by cutting taxes. when governor jeb bush was in office, he cut taxes on floridians by $20 billion. let's talk about the size of government. when ronald reagan was in the white house, he dramatically reduced the ate rah of growth in federal spending and strove to reduce the size of the federal government. when governor bush was in office, he vetoed more than $2.3 billion in earmarked for higher state spending and retuesdayed the size -- reduced the size of the state's government payroll by 13,000 people. when ronald reagan did that on the national level, he did it with a purpose in mind. it was to spur the free market, create opportunity and provide incentives for businesses to frau. in his years in office, over 20 million new jobs were created i
together. during my time in public life, i've been a tax auditor, tax commission. i've been and attorney general. so this is an area that a think i've kind of two perspectives on but how difficult it is to do security, how difficult it is to wake up every day and realize primarily your mission is to protect this country and to protect people. but the only we can do it is when we are held accountable for how we do it. and we are in a time of pretty tough budget questions. and when we have 10 years where we are not able to pass audits it gets increasingly difficult to justify to the american public that we are doing the right thing here. now, i'm new to this, and i can tell you maybe if i sat through 10 hearings like this on a gao audit i would be a little tougher. but i want to give you an example of why the american public is frustrated. recently in north dakota you guys removed three scanners, full body scan is, to move to other locations, to replace scanners that you had to replace because they did not pass privacy measures. minot, north dakota, is a place of great economic growth. in
they can do is if you overpay your taxes, then when you normally would get a refund back, they're allowed to keep your refund. but how do you solve that? everybody who pays income taxes, you just increase your deductions so you're not overpaying your taxes. so really the trade-off isn't going to be do i pay this $1,000 fine for a lot of people versus saving $7,000 by not getting the insurance until i have to. it's going to be, essentially, paying zero fine and then going and saving the insurance premium that's there. $7,000 you'd save each year that you're healthy or $20,000 you'd save each year that your family's healthy is a lot of money to save. it's hard to believe that most people would pass up saving $20,000 a year for their family when i'm sure there's lots of other things they could go and spend their money on. but you could only imagine what happens if everybody decides that they want to go and save that 20,000. this program that was being set up as supposedly a way of making sure everybody's going to get insured is going to find very quickly that nobody's going to want to go and
. moving us away from mistakes of the past and protected inlet and tax payers in the process. with this in mind, i look forward to hearing the testimony of mr. demarco. thank you. >> we now welcome mr. demarco is her sole witness in 2009 president obama designated mr. demarco as acting director of the finance agency, regulator fannie mae, freddie mac and the 12 federal thanks. mr. demarco is a civil servant with over 20 years of housing how was the experience, including stints at gao, treasury and au fait o. he holds both a ba and a phd in economics. without objection, mr. demarco's full written statement will be made part of the record after his oral remarks. members are advised that mr. demarco will be excused as her witness at 12:30 today. welcome to our committee again. you are recognized for a summary of your testimony at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman has to latecomer it could number waters, and please to be here to testify. i submitted a detailed statement of work to engage in activist is the two essays on important topics discussed. fannie mae and fre
janet be well and she's not perfect. tell her i said that. during my time in public life and been a tax auditor, tax commissioner, said this is an area on how difficult it is and how difficult it is to make up every day and whether you're primary mission is to protect people. we are held accountable for how we do it and we are in a time of tight budget questions. when we have 10 years or we aren't able to pass audit, it gets increasingly difficult to justify to the american public that we are doing the right thing here. i'm new to this and i can tell you i sat through 10 hearings like this on a gao audited a tougher. i want to give you an example of why the american public is frustrated. recently in north dakota you guys remixed three full-body scanners to move to other locations to replace scanners that she had to replace because they did not pass privacy measures. by now, north dakota is a place of great economic growth. in fact, their airport is experiencing a 49% increase in passengers. we have more airlines flying in there. the airport is understaffed, yet you remove the scanner ca
from france, that we cut taxes and paid for an entire war out of debt. so when we added some $2 trillion to the national credit card, which is a marriage -- major component of the debt that has been accrued in 2001. when we think about debt and deficits, there are two kinds of deficits. those are those that invest in human capital or infrastructure or invest in education and there are those who do not. which endanger our future by adding to the national debt, and this war deficit was the second kind. my third point that i am passionate about, a lot it's difficult for many people to be passionate about accounting. i'm passionate about the lack of war accounting. one of the purposes of our book, and the several book chapters that we have written since then is to argue that bad accounting matters. the u.s. owes nearly a trillion dollars in what business would call deferred compensation to the men and women who fought the war, but this liability doesn't appear anywhere on the national balance sheet. we did not account for the value of the 6,6057 lives lost in afghanistan. that's jus
that does not tax people because there's a saying there, you know, here we have no taxation without representation, and that there it's no representation without taxation. and the royal family doesn't tax. therefore, you don't get the representation. but oil wealth, obviously, funds the jobs of saudis, and most all saudis work for the government. 90% of the workers in the private sector are foreigners. so there are 19 roughly million saudis and eight to 9 million foreigners in the kingdom. because energy is subsidized and cheap, people waste it. and it has now become again a subject in the saudi press and discussed among saudis that what's going to happen if we continue to use more, and we're blessed to export come and its exports of oil to fund our lifestyle. now, it is possible that the government will find a way to tell people we're going to cut the subsidies, but in this post arab spring environment, they are inclined to take things some people. and the country is $500 billion in foreign reserves, so it's hardly broke, but there are saudis financial institutions who estimate tha
changes in later parts. adoption of the income tax fundamentally changed the role of the federal government via the states and not generate so much revenue it completely has the states do anything it wants. the 16th amendment, which changed the senators -- these to be elected by state representatives for now by the people as fundamentally change the structure because congress no longer contained representatives of the states as entities. and of course the civil war amendments, 13 or 14 and 15. if anything change the structure was the civil war in the post-civil war amendments. one of the things that kept coming up in the office is what is the meaning of section two of the 13th amendment in section five of the 14th amendment an equivalent language issue with this power shall have the authority to enforce these causes by appropriate legislation. many of the statute's expanding national into it had been based on one of those enforcement causes. the most common in section five of the 14th amendment. i mentioned in my talk that ben professor bork come in the first time he was at a mee
for graduation. i don't know about you but when i went to school i went to school in el paso taxes i grew up on a ranch it was too far from school so i went to el paso with my maternal grandparents so i took my schooling there. we had six all the time and i got sick and tired of it. [laughter] but that is a lot better than having nine. so i was very concerned when i announce my retirement about the lack of any nationwide attention of teaching of civics so i decided i could do a little volunteer work and get started with the plan we have the ipad and i everything so i thought icivics would be good and it is. [laughter] but what i did was the most wonderful group of teachers who really know the subject and what these people should know about civic stand with their help of some experts of writing exams we've put together the icivics web site and so we create games it is i want you to look at it. we have games that young people play and they are fun to play now 19 are up and young people get on and they will stay on all night and tell parents make them go to bet. teachers find
to us anymore. of the new technology for communicating instant messages, said chats, blocks , taxing our great avenues for not caring because you think nobody will look at this again anyway. >> host: professor do put a value judgment on the way we read or write? >> guest: if i was being a good win question would say language changes but here is where we need to think twice. if you don't have a love of the language or appreciation for the possibility or the new once -- new wants different than anybody else has said it then you are losing as a writer and one of the problems is writing so much flooding the script but do we think about what we've right to do we add it to ask any professional writer how many drafts did you go through? eleventh or 12th as opposed to important things did you feel it does not matter. then it is a question if you are a reader. if you read "moby dick" on your global fund -- mobile phone you may not get a signal, but you read when you are bored and somebody may speak with you we use those whether face book updates or beating "the new york times" or a novel of lot o
scores on the decline; $3.5 trillion in tax funds spent on poverty, and yet there are more poor people than any other time; progressive education, where we've spent more per capita on students but are getting less and less return on the test scores. those aren't my ideas, morals, ideals, and values, that's the other side's. so i'm trying to get them to defend their philosophy and get a controversy and debate going with this book. >> where were you born? >> i was born in washington, d.c. my mother was there at the time, so it was convenient for both of us. >> and what were your parents doing here? >> well, my dad was a very successful salesman. my mom is a homemaker and is still living. he sold business equipment, calculating machines, and move here at the age of 19 from another washington-- washington, indiana, the oldest of nine children. he and all of his brothers were in the army during world war ii and never expected to give birth, to sire a journalist like myself. there was nobody like me in the family, and i thk there are some family members who may be grateful for that. >> and h
want to hold hack-a-thons in tax-heavy cities like san francisco, austin, denver and new york to forge relationships with developers and stay on the cutting edge. fourth, once our new operation is up and running, we'll embark on a data and digital road show to demonstrate what campaigns and state parties can do to enhance their own operations. the report recommended getting early buy-in from all partners. fifth, we'll upgrade as a platform, redesigning it to better utilize social media and serve an increasingly mobile audience. sixth, we're going to be setting up an rnc field office in the san francisco area. as we learned with visits to the silicon valley and conversations with top tech firms, many of the best minds are on the other side of the country. having an office there will make it easier for technologynologists -- technologists to join in our efforts and serve as a hub for our data and digital political training. by doing all of this, we'll enter 2014 and 2016 with a complete hi revitalized -- completely revitalized approach to campaign mechanics and technology. so fin
about entitlement reform and you know long-term tax reform in that kind of thing? >> guest: i think they care about the basic principle behind it. i don't know that people of this generation or anyone are anyone in this country has a detailed plan for how to address these things except some people in congress but i think we understand the principle behind meeting to make decisions and not wanting to be stuck with having to pay this bill down the road. i think that something this generation has been aware of because we have been talking about it for a long time. >> host: and not just sort of generalizing an entire generation but what do you think the millennials view is on the current state of the economy? things are not good and things are not looking good particularly for the future of this generation. they might be optimistic but they are also wrong in some sense. >> guest: well i'm not sure that they are wrong in the long-term. the optimism is important to note, it's not everything is great and everything is fine right now but it's an optimism here towards the future. i think as
is this new tax like system doesn't come with signs. there are no white only signs any of now signs alerting us to the existence of this system of mass incarceration. in prisons today there of sight and out of mind. often hundreds of miles away from communities and families that might otherwise be connected to them. the people whose cycle in and out of these prisons typically live in segregated, impoverished communities. the middle class folks, upper-middle-class folks. you can live the whole life in america today, having no idea that this system of mass incarceration, and the harm it reeks even exist. pull back the curtain and make visible what is in plain sight so that an awakening can begin and people could begin to take the kind of creative constructive action at this moment in our history surely requires. and it is not going to -- we have got to be willing to get to work. in my view that means we have got to be willing to build an underground railroad for people released from prison. an underground railroad for people who want to make a genuine breaks for real freedom. people who want t
on in the west, we had a tax on the supply lines that became so serious that i was told i might have to impose food rationing on my staff because we couldn't get food through. so the situation as i felt very serious we were stretched thin and i suggested in a memorandum to secretary rumsfeld that he should continue deploying another or two of the american or not american night in a specified. between the times i spoke often about my concern particularly at the quality of the iraqi forces. there was the area that concerned me. that was this desire to believe that the iraqi scud replace americans in the spring of 04 as it happened the force is essentially collapsed and the surprising we just talked about. >>> at next we hear from the former commander of the forces that operate at the abu ghraib prison in iraq in 2003 and in 2004.o >> it's very important for people to see your book and listen to what you have to say c to understand just how little training is conducted because later onlems in it that contributed to the difficulties you see in iraq. >> correct. >> how many drill weekends a month?
look forward to getting the best balance and position for tax taxpayers as well as security. >> getting a lot of areas, you'll have mentioned the criminal network. i was interested. how organized and unified is it? is a criminal network? this is reminding me of the old james bond books where there was this criminal network in the 70s, they had a boss and a set of underlings and a structure. it is that we are dealing with? are we dealing with a bunch of random bad guys? >> it is somewhere in the middle. large cartels operate in a variety of different ways. senator, this is the dark side of globalization. we live in a world where there is connection and the ability to move them the best we can. that there will be entities, individuals, midsize groups, and they cartels that take advantage of this. if you think of the global economy as being about $60 trillion, some estimates are that are about 10% of the global economy. it is invested, if you will, in narcotics, human smuggling, cybercrime being the largest of all these areas, as well as the other things we have talked about. arms and cash
that have hit show by and large the elevation requirements boozers housing tax base and host of people to return after the storm. does not go to the level of those destroyed causing not only lots of the home of the tax base. >> what about the ability to access insurance or cost of insurance. >> if you're not elevated above the flood on the latest reauthorization of the national flood insurance program going to an actuarial base rate if they will build one put up a bit look at a discounted rate showing the reduced risk. moving forward to smart actuarially sound basis is going to price many people to the point have to make hard decisions about elevation are not being able to rebuild based upon insurance rates. >> do you have any estimate so far of how much the cost of the disaster is borne by private insurance versus state governments versus federal government? do you have some breakdown on that? >> given about flood damage will be federal and commercial industry has not chosen to a flood insurance for homeowners peer preponderance is borne by the taxpayer and the flood insurance program
of the income tax and so one and even though nixon backed away from it, it was a certain standard set about the welfare system in the country that you have to give maximum credit for. the philadelphia hiring plan and others so she was a pretty good domestic president. i talked to a guy named paul musgrave who said in the first three or four months of the presidency it was like a golden age if you go back and look at it again it's amazing. all the stuff is going on, new policies and ideas, and the public pieces, john osborn wrote for the watch and said the domestic policy meetings they sit around for hours laughing it and there on a whole different side of mixing. then it all stopped. he stopped. he lost interest. >> that is what makes him such a puzzle. >> i'm not suggesting that you are doing this but i was watching on c-span some clips from nixon's state of the union address. again, i am not suggesting this is a way of becoming healthy, but i did it. and i noticed him talking again and again about the environment. and how proud she was of his achievement in cleaning up the aerts and of th
direct investment, reducing red tape, increasing the supply of electricity, improving the tax system, strengthening the ability to enforce contracts will all live in the is ranking and spur business growth in a way that has been missing thus far. since asia's economy is largely based on global supply chains, it is absolutely critical for india to enact reforms, to liberalize its economy, to tap into this regional market. this is out in the anchors itself in the asia-pacific region, and we should do what we can to help leverage those reforms inside india. that is why i believe the administration must redouble its efforts to secure a u.s.-india bilateral investment treaty. current negotiations are proceeding far too slowly. there are important issues to resolve. it's going to take a concerted effort to make progress, but once the vat is firmly in place, the u.s. should work with india on a free trade agreement that will foster more trade. we should also work with india on high-tech visas where both of our countries jointly benefit. i strongly believe that we are goods and services acro
spending of their tax dollars, is that the public views space much as most people view their cars, they just want them to work. they don't care about the mechanics or how to build or repair a car, they just want to drive the car. similarly with space, because of the resounding success of nasa and other organizations responsible for putting substantial space infrastructure into orbit, americans, indeed people all over the world, use their atm cards, use gps in their cars and boats and rely on the weather channel to tell them whether they should carry an umbrella totally oblivious to the role that space assets play in providing that information. so in that regard the immediate benefits of space activity are not forgotten to most of the public. perhaps that knowledge was never known in the first place. space is associated largely with exploration and so considered expendable during times of economic restraint, something that cannot be put off -- that can be put off until later. but that premise is incorrect even regarding exploration. infrastructure isn't built or launched quickly an
to redress for military victims they have less tax action to justice. >> with the two victims that change the culture in the military? >> there are likely to get more justice in the system that is why it functions. but in the news and mainstream news with the civilian criminal justice system cannot give her justice. >> had to change a culture in the military? >> one piece but that panetta news last month only one specialty is far as reid no. but that goes hand-in-hand with sexual harassment and sexual assaults. >> to report your case how would that have changed how your case was handled and would it have shown? >> five lead had to reach back 20 years but. >> said in my case i presented the documentation necessary to move forward and they did not do anything. to have something come up so we could move forward but ultimately i would have been forced out or scared for my life. >> i am not sure if i would do much different a. so not this year but last year but the budget for everyone to go through the independent prosecutor cited challenges changing in the culture within the military how wome
in the unlikely deep blue state of washington. they went door to door talking about taxes and government spending, and they flipped their state senate to a fiscally-responsible majority caucus. [cheers and applause] willing the torch of liberty, the constitution in our country perish or endure? if we stand and speak for our principles, if we show americans our vision for the future, if we fight for freedom, our country will endure. [cheers and applause] will you clink glasses with the powerful elite? >> no! >> will you link in the face of opposition -- blink in the face of opposition? >> no! >> or will you stand up and fight boldly on principle? >> yes! [cheers and applause] >> patriots, stand with us and fight for freedom! [cheers and applause] fight for our constitution! fight with us for the rights endowed by our creator; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! fight for a better future like ronald reagan did! [cheers and applause] like rand paul, michele bachmann, steve king, scott walker, like tea party patriots do around this country every day! [cheers and applause] and when you stand a
, support the translates into prioritized spending of tax dollars is that the public you space much as most people view their cars. they just wanted to work. they don't care about the mechanics or the combustion engine or how to build or repair the car. they just want to drive the car. similarly with space because of the resounding success of nasa and other organizations, responsible for putting substantial space infrastructure into orbit, americans, indeed, people all over the world, use their atm card, with gps and their cars and boats ever lie on the weather channel to tell them whether they should carry an umbrella totally oblivious to the role the space plays in providing that information. so in that regard the immediate benefit to space activity are not forgotten the most of the public. perhaps that knowledge was never known in the first place. space is associated largel largh exploration comments are considered expendable during times of economic restraint, something that can be put off until later. but the premise is incorrect, even regarding exploration. infrastructure isn't built
and workers from significant job loss by providing a point of order against a carbon tax or a fee on carbon emissions. energy intensive jobs are the first to go when your utility prices get uncompetitive. your ability to compete in the world marketplace, the price of american made goods, what families pay at the pump, what they pay for heating and cooli cooling, what they pay for every american product they make would be impacted by a carbon tax or fee. and i urge the support of this amendment. mrs. murray: mr. president if. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i yield one minute to the senator from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, except for perhaps in congress and in the boardrooms of exxonmobil, it is no longer credible to deny what carbon pollution -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. whitehouse: -- it is no longer credible to ignore what carbon pollution is doing to our atmospheres and to our oceans. we aid and abet that harm by subsidizing carbon, distorting the market
thune. senator thune's amendment would repeal the estate tax without any ability to offset it with additional revenue. mr. president, i believe that the estate tax is actually a meaningful part of our tax code and we have put in place appropriate exemptions, $5 million a perpendicular, $10 million a couple. that means the estate tax right now only applies to about 3,800 people a year. yet if we were to repeal the estate tax without any offset, that would add $600 billion to our debt. we spend a lot of time over these last months talking about the dramatic cuts to defense and sequester, $550 billion. repeal of this would cost more. i would urge if you want to repeal the estate tax, pay for it. vote for the warner amendment 693. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i appreciate the effort being made by the senator from virginia. he's moving in the right direction. we do need to get rid of this once and for all. and i'd be happy to accept his amendment by
that there were, in fact, many new taxes, almost a trillion dollars of new taxes in the health care law. and despite the president's firm pledge at that time not to raise taxes by even one dime on middle-class americans, i at that time asked the joint tack committee to evaluate the law and tell us if there were such took in the law. the letter i received back from joint tax indicated there were at least seven taxes in the health care law that did squarely hit the middle class, and not just in a small way. it's about at least a quarter of a trillion dollars of new taxes that the middle class will pay if we don't fix it. in fact, it's 73 million american families that will ultimately pay this new tax in the obamacare legislation if we don't reform it. so this is an amendment i have brought during the consideration of the health care law. it was defeated then by a claim that there were no taxes in the bill. we now know there are took in the bill. this is just our chance now that these taxes are beginning to be implemented to remove them from the law. the presiding officer: the senator's ti
for almost $1 trillion of new taxes. on the spending side, there is a, i think, a relatively modest amount, not adequate but at least there is an amount of health care savings in the amount of $275 billion. but interestingly, that is not in a reconciliation instruction. and so we do not have the protection and assistance of a reconciliation instruction for the entitlement reforms that are in the budget, but we do for the tax increases that are in the budget, which results in this interesting circumstance. the tax increases by this budget would be almost guaranteed -- well, would be guaranteed to occur because the filibuster would be avoided through reconciliation. and the reforms of the entitlement system would be guaranteed not to occur because they would face a 60-vote margin having been kept out of the reconciliation instruction. what this amendment does is put the health care savings of the budget into a reconciliation instruction so we can at least start down the path of dealing with reform of our entitlement system. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator fro
tax dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. speaking with an iraqi official, special insector, stuart was told, you can fly in a helicopter around baghdad and other cities, but you cannot point a finger to a single project that was built and completed by the united states. mr. speaker, unfortunately these lost opportunities and tragic mistakes are not behind us. as the daughter of a 25-year veteran of the armed forces, i recognize the sacrifices our young men and women have made in iraq and continue to make in afghanistan. i am deeply concerned with the widespread incidences of ptsd and the alarming suicide rates among our returning veterans. we need to honor our troops who served and show our support by giving our o men and women who served the best health care, the best educational opportunities, and the best job available. they deserve nothing less. it is my hope that this reckless and shortsighted decision will mark a turning point in american history and that that we will never again wage an unnecessary war. we must use all the tools of america's power in resolving disputes, incl
in excess of what we are bringing in in terms of dedicated revenue to the payroll tax. the unfunded liability of social security is $20.5 trillion. for medicare the unfunded liability is $42.8 trillion. these programs must be reformed so they are saved for future generations. again, i would hope everybody would support -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. johnson: -- any budget that does not have 57 year solvency. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: social security and medicaid played a critical role in providing a foundation of financial security and health care for hundreds of millions of americans over the decades. democrats are committed to preserving and protecting them. when analyzing the solvency of these programs, it must be over more than just a ten-year budget window. we measure them over a 75-year window. this amendment, however, does nothing to protect the integrity of the medicare and social security trust funds tanned does not do anything to improve the solvency of them. we should have a debate about the solvency of
. my staff has worked with me to draft the original tax credit for businesses that hire veterans, and i'm honored to see that has been adopted by this congress and the president. we have spearheaded efforts to improve mental health screenings for all branches of the military based on montana's strong model for catching the warning signs of ptsd. we started that in montana. it is now incorporated as national defense policy. in the last ten years, our nation has also been fighting terrorists in afghanistan. as we reflect on the costs of the war in iraq, we know that now is the time for afghans to take responsibility for their own country. in 2013, $97 billion will go to the war in afghanistan alone. do you know the money that's being spent in both iraq and afghanistan is enough to double the number of public elementary schools in the united states and rebuild the american interstate highway system five times over. dollars spent daily in afghanistan need to be spent on nation building here at home. i am proud that we are closer than ever to bringing all our troops home. it is not enough to
with that picture. we're going to create dependency and then we're going to indirectly tax the people of wyoming so that one of the great areas of commerce and the visitors that come to wyoming to see yellowstone park, they're going to pay for that with their own posttax money. that can't fit with a vision of america that almost everybody else in this country believes in. it doesn't fit. other national parks have reported camp grounds that are going to be closing, reduced maintenance. so we're going to take this $6 million and we're going to use it to help open up these parks and allow the park service to have the parks open on time. instead of creating dependency in a program -- and the original authorization shouldn't be getting any money, shouldn't have been getting money for the last ten years -- going to take that money and do something for the american people. the next amendment is amendment number 65 as modified. and this is one that really gets my goat. the national science foundation funds lots of great scientific endeavors in this country. as a matter of fact, they have about four times a
Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)